IVlachha Ramulu v. The State of Telangana

Heard Sri CH.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5. 2 as under: *.......to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in the last grade post for continuously working till date in temporary post of last grade in contingent establishment on compassionate grounds from 31.01 .t994 nor regularizing her services even on completion of 28 long years service by not extending the last grade pay benefits with periodical increments from time to time with effect from 3L|0L/L994 to till date from time to time with arrears as per GO Ms No 687 dated 031t01t977 and GO.Ms.No 661 dated 23/tOl200B to tilt date is highly unjust and unfair as per Article !4,L6, 2!, 39(d), 43 and 300-A of Constitution of 5 SN. J India by subjecting petitioner for exproitative ensravement due to her herpress conditions of poverty poor sociar economicar and political background by taking it as advantage by the respondents in continuing her on pittance wages of Rs. t623/p.m and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services of petitioner in the last grade post of sweeper as regular one for ail purposes by granting rast grade pay with periodicar increment revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner for working 28 long years without any service progress with LOOo/o compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.A. No. 34L6-3445 of 2010, dated Lg/02/ 2}tg in the case of union of India vs Avtar chand (2019 3 ALD sc 32) and in the case of Prem singh Vs State of Up and Batch cases reported in (2019 10 SCC 516) in paras 36 and 37 in the case of Netram Sahu Vs State of chattisgarh and Anr in civil Appear No 1251 of 2018 dated 23/03/2018 followed by DB orders issued in the case of Kadar Basha in Wp. No. 267g8 of 2017, dated \O/OB/2017 DB with cost by applying aforesaid principle laid by the Honourable Apex court under Articre 141 of our constitution and pass....,, 6 SN, J PERUSED THE RECORD:-

4. I 7 SN. J reasonable oeriod. 6 No.4

7. "36' There are someof the emproyees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- !0 o.r more years yvhgleas tiey hive been supeiunnr"tuo. As they have worked in the wo'k-charged not against any particurar project, their-r"rri.ut'orght to "it.urirnr.nt, have been regutarized unde.lro-'corernment instructions and even as per the deciiion or this court in state of Karnataka versus Umadevi rllri. This court in the said 8 SN, J decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them riqht from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for puroose of pension." Literate Dailv Wage Emplovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 199O(2) SCC Paqe 396'laid principle oersons as reoular one. hereunder:- 9 SN, J

10. hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as ,'part_time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decaaes. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, 10 SN, J and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work'

13. The recurring necessitates their nature of these duties classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional'

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft corporation [97 F.3d llBT (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits.TheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheNinth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees' The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing tneir profits. This judgment underscores the prinliple tnat the nature of th9 work perfoimed, rather than the label assigned to the SN, J worker, should determine employment the corresponding rights and be status and nefits. It

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misa pplied to deny legitimate claims of lo ng serving employees. This judgment aimed to d istinguish between "illegat,' appointments. "irregul time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscrimina tely reject the claims of employees, even in ca ses where their appointments are not il but merely lack legal, adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for tem porary employees, overlooking explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. judgment's decades. In light of these considerations, in our 27. . opinion, it is imper-ative for government departments to lead by exampre in pr:oriJing"rui. 9nd stable empto-yment. Engaging worfeii tn a temporary basis for extended especiatty when their roles are integrar to the organiiution', -peiiods, lf- : :-: ..lr-i .d..-;:.ICJ t2 SN, J functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .L0.2018 are quashed; ii. The aooellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their services reqularised forthwith. However, the apoellants shall not be entitled pecuniary benefits/back waqes for the period thev have not worked for but would be entitled to qontinuity of services for the said period and the same would be counte for their oost- retiral benefits."

11. The Judqment of the Aoex Court dated 31.O1.2O25 reported in 2025 INSC 144 in IISHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. J 13 SN, J NAGAR NTGAM. GHAZTABAD". in oarticular. the relevant ..15. n n vears- sometimes spannino more than a decade. t u nder l-estahl furnish such the mDlover's failure rds- r infe nce iurisprudence. rndian rabour law stronqlv disfavors peroetual dailv-waqe or contractual engaoements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morallv and leoailv, workers who fulfil onqoino municioal reouirements vear after vear cannot be dismissed summarilv as disoensable, particularlv in the absence of a qenuine contractor aoreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite ,.temporary,, employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. union of rndia in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary emproyment contracts, ErS exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted 14 SN, J with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: . Misu of "TemDo rv" Labels: E nlovees enqaqed for work that is essential' recurring, and inteqral to the functioninq of an institution are often labelled as "temporarv" or les mirror "contractua -" even when their reqular emolovees. Such those of misclassification deprives workers of the dionitv, securitv, and benefits that regular emolovees are entitled to, desoite oerforminq identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular l5 SN, J counterparts, despite their equally significant. contributions being ' Using outsourcing as a Shierd: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This prictice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, eipecially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. consequenUy, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutor.y violation evident on record. 17. In light of these considerations, the Employer,s discontinuation of the Appellant workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. once it is established that their services were terminated without l6 SN, J adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were enoaoed in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be releoated to oerpetual uncertaintv. While concerns recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto reqular roles for an extended period. meaningful back waqes. is hereby set aside with the followinq directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, t947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. t7 SN, J IiI. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. statutorv and eouitable norms.

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed."

12. l8 SN, J vs Jaqiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2)(3). of the said judgment observed as under: "54 "Ihe Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum. of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reasont that the activities carried on by daity-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if daily wagers ad hoc or contractual appointees are not aopointed against reoular sanctioned posts and their seruices are availed continuously with notional breaks, by the 'State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient lono period i.e. for 7O years. such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual aopointees shall be entitled to minimum of the reaular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of oerennial nature is available and having worked for such lona period of time, an equitable right is created in such category of persons. Their claim for regularization, if anv may have to be considered separatelv in terms of legally oermissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wagert ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. The iudoment of the Aoex Court reported in 2O1O(9) scc 247 State of Karnataka and others v It t9 SN, J under: 4 4 Constittttjpn_BeAeh of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articte 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unles.s the recruitment had been done in a regular manneL in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduty with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the sfafe or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facititate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This court furthir held t.hat a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage €mployss does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : 20 SN, J in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up in cases where temporary emplovees or daily waoers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in tJmadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duty sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten Years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person emptoyed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iiil llmadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality. to take steps to reoularize the services of those irregularly apoointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one'time measure. Umadevi. directed that such one'time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.2OO6), 6. The term 'one-time measLtre' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This woutd normally mean that after the decision in umadevi, each department or each instrumentality shoutd undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than tbn years without the intervention of courts and I I 21 SN. J tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posfs and possess fhe requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in umadevi, cases of several daity-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees 'several were still pending before courts. consequently, departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. on the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-tirne exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or becau:;e the six month period mentioned in p-ara 53 of umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise shoutd consider ail daity- 'of wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without avaiting the protection of any interim orders of courts or.tribunals. 7f any emplover had held the one-time exercise in teims of para 53 of umade:vi, but did not consider the cases of some empioyees who were etntitled to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi, the'employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise witt be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. 22 SN, J 7O.4.2OOG (the date of decision in Umadevil without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts. possessing the requisite qualification. are entitled to be considered for reoularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in reqard to a limited few. will not disentitle such employees. the right to be considered for reoularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure,

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six monthq a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless fo say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. L4. In the judoment of the AoeX Court in Nihal Sinqh and others v. State.of Puniab reoorted in (2O13) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption I ( ,! Z) SN. J of special Police officers appointed by the state, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. rt held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the state and disciplinary control vested with the state. rt held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the state, but if the state did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. rt also refused to accept the d"f.r." thrt thu.. *"." no r"r.tion.d oort, and so there was justification for the state to utitise services of laroe number of oeoole tike the apoeltants for decades. rt held that "sanctioned oosts do not fall from heaven" and that the state has to create them bv a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment befor" the- *e.e ,rot arbitra.ilv chosen- their initiar appointment was no 7 24 Sn*, J temporarv and not aqainst any sanctioned oosts created bv the State. It was held that the judgment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a practice inconsistent with their obliqation to function in accordance with the Constitution. paras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.7994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even.subsequent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years / ,/ I 25 SN, J without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. B. In the circumstanceq refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.o. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is ailowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with etfect from the date of their completing their iive year continuous service as was laid down by this court in District collector/Chairperson & others vs. M.L. singh & ors. 2009 (B) SCC 4BO.

16. scc 265, the suoreme court held that .The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not iilegat, and to ensure securitv of emplovment of those persons who had served the state Ggvernment and their instrumentalities for more than ten vears". rn that case, emoloyee was workinq for 29 vears. M.L.Kesari extracted above.

17. rn state of Jarkhand v Kamal prasad reoorted in (2014) 7 scc 223. similar view was taken bv the "47,,.. h ,i"* of th. ,rt"goricrl findino of frct on th. relevant contentious issue that s \ \ F 26 sN'J have continued in their service f:or more th.an 70 vears the legal principle laid down bv @erefore. Fiis courti Umadevi case (State of Karnataka..v Umadevi @A) a sCCi : zoOa SCc (tgs) zg) at para-Sg squarety cases, The Division Bench of the @resent Wi cou* ias riqhttv hetd that the respondent employees are entitlecl for the relief the same cannot be interfered with bY this Court."

18. The Judgment of this court dated o6.L2.2O22 passed in w.P.No.276O2 of 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this court in w.A.No.937 0l 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2O24.

19. The udoment of the A Court in Hari Manclir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 and in particular oara Nos.1 OO and 10 held as fo lows: *100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 o{ the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus ot" in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exgrcise such power. where the Government or a ouhlic authority 6F faileCl to exercise or has wrgnqly exercised Gretio,n conferrect uoon it bv a statute' or a rule' or the Government or has exercised @ I I 27 n consideration. SN, J

101. In all such cases, the High court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority."

20. The Division Bench of this court in its Judoment dated 1o.o6.2o13 passed in w.A.Nos.7g2 of 2o1o and g54 of 2012 while upholdino the Judoment dated og.o9.2o1o passed in w.P.No.24377 of 2oo7 and c.c.No.4g of 2o0g observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on r-ecord that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law courts were regularized. The appellant-corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated zo.L2.19gg, 11.09. Lgg2, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.zoog for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but Lnfair labour practice attracting the provisions of section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals.,, 2L. The Division Bench of this court in its Judoment dated 19.o9.2fJL7 .No.272t7 o in W. 2(JL7 28 SN, J reDorted in 2O18(2)ALD paq 282 at Dara 16 and oara 18 observed as under:- *16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article L4L of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, were in existence. The Supreme Coutt, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore. Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms.'No;212' dated 22.4.1994. do not whittle down the width and the iudqment in Manjula Bashinf's case (supra). does not lrrrerar Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its judqment in Uma Oevi's case (supra). It is. therefore, not permissible for the I OG.d anrl G 6 racnnn;lante Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny regularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi s case (supra). tr.aiartarv AaJ I af ;liraalinnc iccr rarl r taAat clraltar f ha

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2OL7, in OA No.1442 of 20t4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider reoularisation of the services of the petitioners against the existing vacancies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subiect to their satisfying the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). This process ntust be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." { ( 29 SN, J

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 202O in 1 of 2O19 rnrl W.P.N at 2 ?nt7 trf ?fl1O nrrrtarl in )i)i(d.\Al D naaa 379 at paras 45, 48 and oara 5O obserted as under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. avaraica e 1st resoondent has not 48. It is not known whv followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (supra), as explained in M.L. Kesari's case (supra) and undertaken a lict nf rlailrr rlra.ra ana-iirra employees who had worked for more than ten (10) years without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 1O.4.2O06 and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vac?nt oosts and possess requisite qualifications for the posts. and if so, regularize their services. h?ant

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles L4, 16 and 2t of the Constitution of India; the respondents are directed to reoularize on one-time basis petitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners complete 1O years of service on daily wages from the initial dates of their appointment. But, they shall not be entitled to any monetary relief. The said exercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receiot of copy of the order."

23. This Court opines that in the present case, the resoondents failed to discharge their dutv in examininq the request of the oetitioner for reqularization of 30 SN, J service of the oetitioner in the last qrade oost of full time time from the date of appointment of the oetitioner, in accordance to law.

24. This Court opines that petitioner is entitled for consideration of oetitioner's case for qrant of the relief as and extracted above.

25. Takino into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 i 3l SN, .I c) The observations of the Apex court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(2o20) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) scc page 396 (iii) 2O2s rNSC 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2oL7) 1 scC 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) Scc 241 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32B4Z of 2024 (xii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this court dated 10.06-2013 passed in w.A.Nos.tgz of 2o1o and g54 of 2o12 while uploading the Judgment dated og.o9.2010 passed in w.P.No.2437z of 2oo7 and c.c.No.4g of 2oo8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this court dated 19.09.2017 passed in w.p.No.272tl of 2oL7 (referred to and extracted above), 32 SN, J f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.L ot 2O2O in 1of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 of 2019 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The Writ Petition is allowed, the petitioner is directed to put-forth the claim of the petitioner for reqularization of oetitioner's services, and also the claim of the petitioner to treat the temporary services of the petitioner in the last qrade post of Sweeoer as regular one for all iurooses bv qrantinq tast orade oay with periodicat increments revised from time to time from the date of aopointment of the oetitioner and all consequential benefits. dulv enclosinq all the relevant documents in support of petitioner's case as out-forth in the present writ petition, within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the respondents shall examine and consider the same in accordance to law, in conformiW with princioles of natural iustice bv providino an opportunitv of personal hearing to the JJ SN, J oetitioner, in terms of orders passed bv the Suoreme Court in Uma Devi's case reDorted in 2OO6(4) SCC Paqe 1, the iudqment oassed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 dated O8.09.2O1O reoorted in 2011 (1) At-D; Paqe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O10 dated 1O.O6.2013. and also as oer Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated 2O18(2)ALD Daoe 2A2

19.O9.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.27217 of 2007 reoorted in also the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O 19 in W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 reoorted in 2O2O( AIALD e 379 which had attained fin: titrr wifhin r narinrf af fn tlr f04l raraakc frnnr fha data of receipt of a copv of this order. dulv takinq into consideration the observations and the law laid down bv the Apex Court in the various iudoments (referred to and extracted above), and in oarticular, oara No.53 of the in the case of State of iudoment of the Aoex Karnataka v- Uma Devi and dulv errmrirrrnicate fhe decision to the oetitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 34 SN, J Miscellaneous petitions, if dflv, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSI T REG //TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER onbfaircopytoTHEHoN'BLEMRSJUSTICESUREPALLINANDA (For Her LordshiP's Kind Perusal) To,

1. The Principal secre[ary, .The State of Telangana, Panchayathraj Department' fetangand Secretariat, Hyderabad'

2. The Principal secretary, The State of Telanglna, Finance and Planning L' D;; rtffifit, e-o? i'r t'"rrngi nu, T"irns rnis ecreta riat, Hvd erabad. 3. The District collector (Panchayat), and chairman of Minimum wages d;111it[|! rnO'Oitiiiii Setection'Committee, Jangoan District'

4. The chief Executive officer, The Zilla Praja Parishad, Jangoan District,' 5. The Mandal Development officer, [tlandal Praia Parishad, Jangoan Mandal and District. 6. 11 L.R. CoPies. 7. The Under secretary, Union of lndia, tvlinistry of Law, Justice and company 8. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High court Affairs, New Delhi' Buildings, HYderabad

9. One CC to Sri CH. Ganesh, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two ccs to Gp for services-ll, High court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

11.One CC to Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, SC[OPUC]

12.Two CD CoPies TJ GJP *v HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:2210712025 ORDER WP.No.30945 of 2022 t * .THE S 1 e oEc 2$6 ,r-f' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS p.6 dd> k\#